The biggest difference I have actually seen at the table between old school and new school play has been the primary method players use to attempt to do anything.

I happened to have had the chance to run both OD&D and 5E in the past couple of years for a group with many of the same players in both games.

In the OD&D game the players interacted more with the setting and described what they wanted to do in plain language. The character sheet was rarely referenced and most often used for writing down acquired loot.

In the 5E game there was lot of " I want to make an X check" and the primary interaction attempts were with mechanics instead of setting elements. Most players would take at least a second or so to scan their character sheets before doing anything.

Mechanics first interactions can suck the life right out of play sometimes.

Quote from: Phillip;857459There's been a very pronounced shift in attitude, from the game being what hobbyists create in their campaigns to the game being a bought product; from handbooks being tools for the GM, to their being for players to cite (to "rules lawyer" in old parlance, which was a pejorative).

The DiYers were always a minority in the hobby. As well as the hard core By-the-book gamer. My experience is that refereeing Tabletop Roleplaying campaign has never been easy. People tend to use the rules as written as a way of managing the complexity of the game. Focusing their creativity on select areas that interest them.

The shift in attitude we seen is because for a long time we had a single company with dominant control over the hobby. This no longer the case so we have a golden age of D&D right now with a multitude of play styles and viewpoints being supported.

Quote from: Phillip;857188Application to monsters is in fact what's stated in Monsters and Treasure. For Chainmail Fighting Capability, give the critter one roll of appropriate type per D&D Hit Die, with any bonus pips added to one of those.

Do you have a page number by any chance? I can't find it.

I am asking because two decades ago I was wondering where the rule for damage was in OD&D core was. I searched and searched for it the life of me I could not find it. Well a decade after that I found it that it was omitted in the printing I have. I saw screen shots of page 19 and in my copy the sentence on the bottom that said that "All attacks do 1-6..." was not there.

It not a major thing but I would like to figure out where it like I did the damage rule.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;857470The biggest difference I have actually seen at the table between old school and new school play has been the primary method players use to attempt to do anything.

I happened to have had the chance to run both OD&D and 5E in the past couple of years for a group with many of the same players in both games.

In the OD&D game the players interacted more with the setting and described what they wanted to do in plain language. The character sheet was rarely referenced and most often used for writing down acquired loot.

In the 5E game there was lot of " I want to make an X check" and the primary interaction attempts were with mechanics instead of setting elements. Most players would take at least a second or so to scan their character sheets before doing anything.

Mechanics first interactions can suck the life right out of play sometimes.

I saw that in our Star Wars d20 game too.  Drives me nuts.

Quote from: RandallS;857443I played Cowboys and Indians as a child -- as did almost everyone I know from that time -- and there was no profit in it. Commercial roleplaying games may have been "a profit-making venture almost from the beginning" but role-playing certainly was not.

It always confused me how my mom was fine with us playing racially motivated genocide but not war.

Quote from: estar;857480Well a decade after that I found it that it was omitted in the printing I have. I saw screen shots of page 19 and in my copy the sentence on the bottom that said that "All attacks do 1-6..." was not there.

When we started playing, all attacks did 1d6 of damage, but very soon after we began playing, less than a month or two after we started playing in 1977 someone in our group (I'm thinking Doug) picked up a copy of Greyhawk, and we immediately adopted variable weapons damage as a result. This improved our game play experience, and was also supported by the Judges Guild Wizard Guide, and other supplements as well.

Quote from: GameDaddy;857528When we started playing, all attacks did 1d6 of damage, but very soon after we began playing, less than a month or two after we started playing in 1977 someone in our group (I'm thinking Doug) picked up a copy of Greyhawk, and we immediately adopted variable weapons damage as a result. This improved our game play experience, and was also supported by the Judges Guild Wizard Guide, and other supplements as well.

Sure, Greyhawk is what turned OD&D into the game that most people recognize as classic D&D.

OD&D using only the core books (1d6 damage, etc) plays out a little different with a flatter power curve.

Quote from: estar;857480Do you have a page number by any chance? I can't find it.

Page 5, first page after the Monster Reference Table.

"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll."

A Troll counts as 6 Heavy Foot, so vs. Armored Foot it gets 3 dice, two killing on 6 and one killing on 3-6. Normal men without magic weapons cannot harm it.

QuoteI am asking because two decades ago I was wondering where the rule for damage was in OD&D core was.

Vol. 1, p. 19 (under the Attack Matrix): "All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points damage unless otherwise noted."

Vol. 2 notes otherwise for ogres, giants, elementals, djinns and efreets. Probably balrogs if your printing has 'em.

QuoteI searched and searched for it the life of me I could not find it. Well a decade after that I found it that it was omitted in the printing I have. I saw screen shots of page 19 and in my copy the sentence on the bottom that said that "All attacks do 1-6..." was not there.

It not a major thing but I would like to figure out where it like I did the damage rule.

Ah, yes. If all you have are older printings, the TSR errata sheet's text should be online somewhere -- probably at both OD&D Discussion and Knights & Knaves. The D&D FAQ is also nifty, covering ideas such as how to deal with orcs trying to overbear a PC.

Quote from: estar;857544Sure, Greyhawk is what turned OD&D into the game that most people recognize as classic D&D.

OD&D using only the core books (1d6 damage, etc) plays out a little different with a flatter power curve.

I favor modifying roll to hit instead of normal weapon damage roll. A +/- 2 makes more proportional difference vs. better ACs and when you're lower level, and is usually the difference between bands of levels.

Quote from: Phillip;857617Page 5, first page after the Monster Reference Table.

"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll."

A Troll counts as 6 Heavy Foot, so vs. Armored Foot it gets 3 dice, two killing on 6 and one killing on 3-6. Normal men without magic weapons cannot harm it.

Thanks. I figured what happened. I normally use the PDFs I bought off of RPGNow before Wizards pulled their catalog. That section did not scan. When I checked my physical copy I found it. So thanks.

Quote from: Phillip;857617Vol. 1, p. 19 (under the Attack Matrix): "All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points damage unless otherwise noted."

Now that is missing from my physical copy which I bought around 1980,81. It was a White Box Original Collector's Edition. I also got the Wooden Box reprint which of course has it.

Mmm which reminds to hop over on Acaeum and see what they know about that.

Quote from: Phillip;857617Ah, yes. If all you have are older printings, the TSR errata sheet's text should be online somewhere -- probably at both OD&D Discussion and Knights & Knaves. The D&D FAQ is also nifty, covering ideas such as how to deal with orcs trying to overbear a PC.

 I got that stuff. The monster attacks was something I missed though. I need to re-read my originals and not my PDFs again to see what else I can pick up. I hope Wizards gets the OD&D reprints PDF out sometime.

Again thanks.

Quote from: Phillip;857621I favor modifying roll to hit instead of normal weapon damage roll. A +/- 2 makes more proportional difference vs. better ACs and when you're lower level, and is usually the difference between bands of levels.

Another technique I found interesting that in lieu of a larger dice of damage or bonuses roll 2d6 and take the highest for your damage. I think Philotomy recommends this for making two handed weapons better than their one handed counterparts.

Quote from: estar;857625Another technique I found interesting that in lieu of a larger dice of damage or bonuses roll 2d6 and take the highest for your damage. I think Philotomy recommends this for making two handed weapons better than their one handed counterparts.

That's exactly how I do it. It gives the player an advantage while avoiding yet another "plus," and it also maintains the same ceiling on maximum damage output.